#753Almalieque,
Posted:Oct 18 2011 at 2:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's correct. Never implied otherwise. Unless you're suggesting that not focusing on the things that make the age 18 special (voting rights, legal age, etc) makes a better argument for moving the drinking age from 21 to 18 as opposed to focusing on the things that make age 18 special, then your analogy fails.

If you're comparing skin color with sexuality, a physical trait with a personality trait and claiming that they are the same thing, then you are beyond confused.

Sexual orientation & race are not the same thing. The justifications used to support discrimination by either are similar though.

Alma wrote:

This entire time, you acted like homosexuality was the only thing being discriminated against.

Not at all, but homosexuality, like race, lacks a logical justification unlike some of the other ways the military discriminates. With DADT repealed does the military still discriminate for other reasons? Yup. Is that a logical reason not to repeal DADT? Nope.

Alma wrote:

You asked me to list these other forms of discrimination. I listed them and your only responses were attempts of justification and "they are not the same" even though my point was just to simply prove to you that the military discriminates in more ways than one.

Cool story. How come because the military still discriminates against other things that makes it ok to discriminate because of sexual orientation? Oh wait, it doesn't.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.

Bzzzttt!!

Oh, I'm sorry. You lost the washer/dryer AND the trip to Cancun, but we DO have a nice copy of the home game as a parting gift...

???

So, you're arguing that if you want to EXCLUSIVELY argue for a specific group that you can or must include other groups? Do you not know what "exclusive" mean?

#769Almalieque,
Posted:Oct 20 2011 at 11:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What? No.. You claimed that there weren't any other forms of discrimination. I proved you wrong. Instead of admitting it, now you're trying to turn that around and pretend that I was trying to say it was ok because of other forms of discrimination when I explicitly said the contrary numerous of times

#776Almalieque,
Posted:Oct 20 2011 at 1:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well does that mean you have a hard time understanding my statement regardless of who's fault? No need to restate it, if you already understand it.

#787Almalieque,
Posted:Oct 20 2011 at 3:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You must be referring to the posts where you're just saying the same thing that has already been refuted. Even if I did magically ignore your posts, you have not added anything to this conversation. Everything you have said has already been said by someone else.

The justifications are not similar either. What you're doing is taking the lowest form of an "argument", hatred and bigotry, and claiming that since there are people who argue with hatred and bigotry against homosexuality, the justifications are similar.

Those justifications are similar. "Comfort" was another justification that was also similarly applied to both racial & sexual orientation discrimination.

Alma wrote:

Well, the legitimate justifications against homosexuality within the military has nothing to do with hatred and bigotry.

What legitimate justifications? Name ONE. Brownie points if it couldn't also be applied to racial discrimination.

Alma wrote:

So, as I said above, if you want to sit there with your fingers in your ears screaming that there isn't any justification when it was presented before DADT, during DADT and even in the repeal of DADT, then that's a personal problem.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but I've been waiting for one logical justification to discriminate by sexual orientation from you for awhile now. "Post 206" does not answer that. A complete sentence, or one filled out madlib, would.

Alma wrote:

What? No.. You claimed that there weren't any other forms of discrimination.

I did? The CLOSEST thing I've posted in this thread that could POSSIBLY be misconstrued by a moron into thinking I claimed that was when I asked you the following question:

"Besides a woman's role in combat & the physical requirement needed to join the armed forces (neither of which are the equivalent of discrimination solely based upon ones sexual orientation), how does the military blatantly & openly discriminate? Be specific. "

This question was asked so you would answer &, hopefully, be able to understand the difference between (mostly) logical justifications for discrimination (gender, religion, etc.) & illogical justifications.

Alma wrote:

Now you're trying to turn that around and pretend that I was trying to say it was ok because of other forms of discrimination when I explicitly said the contrary numerous of times.

Alma, #647, as his answer to why woman whom meet the physical standard still aren't allowed to do some things wrote:

Because the military discriminates in more ways than just against homosexuals.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

Those justifications are similar. "Comfort" was another justification that was also similarly applied to both racial & sexual orientation discrimination.

So we agree. Hatred and bigotry can be used for ANY argument. You can't use those "arguments" for the legitimate justification for the discrimination. My post did not support any bigotry or hatred. Under your logic, all discrimination is the same because we can all reduce it to "hatred" and "bigotry". The actual justification for the discrimination of homosexuality did NOT include either of those, so therefore the two reasons are NOT the same.

Vegeta wrote:

What legitimate justifications? Name ONE. Brownie points if it couldn't also be applied to racial discrimination.

Post 206.

Vageta wrote:

Perhaps it's just semantics, but I've been waiting for one logical justification to discriminate by sexual orientation from you for awhile now. "Post 206" does not answer that. A complete sentence, or one filled out madlib, would.

Post 206. You're trying to put an entire post into one sentence, it can not happen. You either take the whole post as a whole or stop asking for an explanation, because that's all you will get.

Vegeta wrote:

This question was asked so you would answer &, hopefully, be able to understand the difference between (mostly) logical justifications for discrimination (gender, religion, etc.) & illogical justifications.

And you yet provided any "logical justifications" for gender, religion,etc. You responded with the same responses that you are attacking for homosexuality. For example, you say "traditional gender roles", but "traditional gender roles" do not support homosexuality. So, according to your "logical explanation" for discrimination against ***, it also supports DADT. So, do you or do you not stand by "traditional gender roles"?

You also said for religion to basically suck it up, because you should have known that before joining. I can just as easily use that same thought process against homosexuality.

Unless I overlooked it, I responded to your post refuting all of your claims and you did not reply.

Vageta wrote:

Almalieque The Great wrote:

Now you're trying to turn that around and pretend that I was trying to say it was ok because of other forms of discrimination when I explicitly said the contrary numerous of times.

Almalieque The Most Awesome, #647, as his answer to why woman whom meet the physical standard still aren't allowed to do some things wrote:

Because the military discriminates in more ways than just against homosexuals.

Smiley: dubious

And your point? That isn't a contradiction. You ask why women can't do certain things. I answered because the military discriminates. I was pointing out to you that it discriminates beyond sexuality as what you are implying. I did not say that one lead to the to other, just simply it exists.

And your point? That isn't a contradiction. You ask why women can't do certain things. I answered because the military discriminates. I was pointing out to you that it discriminates beyond sexuality as what you are implying. I did not say that one lead to the to other, just simply it exists.

One hurdle at a time there champ, the gays got their freedom from discrimination, maybe next it will be chicky-poos on the front line. Rome wasn't built in a day.